This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 7/1/12, Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com> wrote:As discussed, I would say that RTTI is currently not permitted but could be added later.
But isn't "could be added later" always true? Other folks have objected to such wording on the grounds that it adds no information, so I hesistate to add such wording now.
For the rationale, I would say that disabling RTTI saves some space for classes with virtual functions when it isn't used, but could be enabled if it would be useful in some part of the compiler. And then remove the rest of the rationale.
I think you're objecting to "Checking the type of a class at runtime usually indicates a design problem." I copied this text from the wiki. Does anyone object to me removing it?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |